John Dean and ___________ ? Original flipper John Dean looks at the state of the special prosecution:

An unidentified government official, The New York Times reports, says that Fitzgerald was "not expected to take any action in the case this week." With his grand jury expiring on October 28, 2005, he is down to only a few options:

First, he could close down his Washington office; return to his work in Chicago, where he serves as the U.S. Attorney; and simply issue a statement that his investigation has ended. (He has no authority to write a report, for the information he has obtained is subject to Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and thus is secret).

Second, he could extend the grand jury for whatever time he needs to complete his investigation. And third, he could issue one or more indictments.

(Future notorious Non-Supreme Court Justice Robert Bork was the designated hatchet man -- an act that did not go down well in Washington and played a part in his being rejected for the high court for partisan reasons, which put us all on the road we find ourselves today with the nomination of Bush crony Harriet Miers, which has added only more problems to the troubled presidency of W. Oh the circular ironies of Beltway living!)

So has someone flipped in the White House, like Dean did on national television? Dean himself seems to think we indeed may have another case of All the President's Men ... and perhaps the president himself:

Something is going to happen, and, I think, fairly soon. It has been many years since my conversations with well placed friends in Washington have reflected the sort of inside-the-Beltway tension that is now mounting. This tension was not matched during the Whitewater/Lewinsky investigation, nor during Iran-Contra. But it is very reminiscent of the wait for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule in Nixon v. United States- the decision that famously forced Nixon to turn over his secretly recorded taped conversations -- and ended his presidency.

The similarity is, of course, because there is the real potential that this investigation and prosecution could reach right into the top of the Bush White House. How high is the source in question? Could it be George Bush himself? Dick Cheney? Karl Rove? Scooter Libby? My guess is that, in different ways, all four likely were involved in the exposure of Plame's covert identity.

Guesswork, yes. But even if Bush is culpable, what can be done? Constitutional issues stand in the way:

First, there is the Constitutional language that appears to make impeachment and removal the only solution for presidential misconduct. There is also the point that conduct bad enough to constitute a serious crime, is likely also bad enough for impeachment -- and that, after impeachment removal, of course, an ex-president can be indicted.

On a more practical level, a president can remove any federal prosecutor who might indict him, for they all serve at his pleasure.

...In other words, Fitzgerald could be Coxed if he pushes too hard.

As for Cheney, Dean points out that if Cheney is indeed impeached by the House, he would Constitutionally preside over his own trial in the Senate.

Alas, in the end, John Dean doesn't expect too much to come of all this excitement:

In short, I cannot imagine any of them being indicted, unless they were acting for reasons other than national security. Because national security is such a gray area of the law, come next week, I can see this entire investigation coming to a remarkable anti-climax, as Fitzgerald closes down his Washington Office and returns to Chicago.

And yet the damage is done. David Gergen says "the wheels are coming off" the Bush administration. Poll numbers are way in the tank. Conservatives are squabbling. Reporters are scrambling to cover it -- or dodge it.

The only problem is that we're stuck with these guys. And only sweeping victories for Democrats in the election next year offer any reasonable chance to change this situation. --But even then, it's questionable that they could stick together for an impeachment vote. After all, it seems half of them vote Republican half the time already.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court under new Chief Justice John Roberts cleared the way on Monday for a pregnant Missouri prisoner to obtain an abortion, despite objections from state officials.

In a brief order without comment or recorded dissent, the high court rejected Missouri's request to put on hold a federal judge's order requiring that prison authorities transport the inmate to a St. Louis clinic for an abortion.

How Roberts would rule on abortion was a major issue in his confirmation hearings in the Senate. This was the first abortion-related case the court has acted upon since he became chief justice, but since there was no written ruling it does not necessarily signify how he would vote on the issue in future cases.

You can hear James Dobson's molars grinding right now. This is exactly what the radical dominionists don't want: a secular court recognizing civil and human rights, especially for women. They want a theocratic government, a pseudo-Christian analogue to the Taliban in Afghanistan, where the people are ruled by a government according to skewed interpretations of scripture.

And that is why those "in the know" in the right-wing ranks are pushing hard for Harriet Miers, speaking out against the skeptics on the right, and offering reassurances to those who share the vision of governmental control of wombs across the nation. Consider this essay from Lou Dubose in the LA Weekly:

What they should know is that Miers is an anti-abortion-rights zealot, who, as we say in the South, is â€œkeeping companyâ€? with a Texas Supreme Court justice who defines anti-abortion zealotry in Texas. Miersâ€™ love interest, Nathan Hecht, anchors the right wing of one of the nationâ€™s most conservative high courts. He is the Texas Supreme Courtâ€™s most vocal â€” and at times most reckless â€” opponent of a womanâ€™s right to choose. He was the midwife to Miersâ€™ born-again experience in 1979, when the two of them fell to their knees (in prayer) in Miersâ€™ office at the Dallas law firm where they worked. Now, on orders from White House political operative Rove, he is selling Miers to the partyâ€™s evangelical Christian base. Heâ€™s not saying much about her record.

Miers does have a record, even if it is not a public one. A highly regarded Republican Texas jurist has described Miersâ€™ position on womenâ€™s reproductive rights as solidly anti-choice. A political consultant who ran Miersâ€™ campaign for Dallas City Council places her on â€œthe extreme end of the anti-choice movement.â€? The nondenominational evangelical Christian church Miers attends has been described by one of its former ministers as a â€œBible-based congregation that is opposed to abortion.â€? But most importantly, as president of the Texas Bar Association, Miers campaigned very hard to end the American Bar Associationâ€™s support of a womanâ€™s right to choose.

Now this isn't really news -- we've heard a lot about this. But a bit further down it gets even more disturbing:

Miers is a member of an extended family of anti-choice candidates moved into public office by Karl Rove. The Texas Supreme Court is loaded with them. On that court, Justice Hecht was also romantically linked to Priscilla Owen. (It was Owenâ€™s appointment to the federal 5th Circuit Court of Appeals that almost destroyed the United States Senate last year.) Hecht and Owen were two of seven Rove candidates on the Texas court when Rove moved to Washington in 2000. Miers almost became number eight. When U.S. Senator John Cornyn left the court to run for attorney general in 1998, Bush considered appointing Miers to fill the vacant seat. â€œEveryone was excited about the prospect of a love triangle involving three justices,â€? said a lawyer working at the court....

...Karl Rove is not a Christian Ideologue. Itâ€™s likely that in his heart of hearts he doesnâ€™t care one way or another about abortion. He is a pragmatist who cares about one thing: winning elections. Hecht is cut from different cloth. Thatâ€™s why Rove has him selling Miers to the partyâ€™s evangelicals. Hecht is well-suited to the task. Besides providing a literal and a certain romantic cachet to the term â€œjudicial activism,â€? Justice Hechtâ€™s opinions on reproductive rights are considered extreme by Texas standards. Like Priscilla Owen, Hecht worked very hard to create insurmountable hurdles for minors going to court to obtain abortions. In one of the Jane Doe minor abortion cases the Texas court decided in 2000, Hecht quoted so extensively from the district-court transcripts of one girlâ€™s case that he revealed her identity â€” a breach of confidentiality so great that it drew an angry opinion from a fellow Republican justice. When Hecht speaks, the evangelicals in the Republican Party would be wise to listen.

The hate and contempt this man holds for young women who would dare to make their own reproductive choices is palpable. That Hecht is barnstorming for Miers is perhaps the clearest indication of her dark heart, and highlights what her presence on the Supreme Court would mean to the lives of women in this country for many years to come.

Frankly I don't care if Hecht and Miers are literally in bed together. It's the indication that they're philosophically in bed together that scares the bejeezus out of me.

The White House's thinking is pretty simple: Democrats have now publicly said that a nominee with a largely unknown record is acceptable, and Miers has that. Should be smooth sailing, right? Wouldn't Democrats look hypocritical to oppose Miers on the basis of her lack of real Supreme Court-qualifying experience or adequate legal credentials, in light of Democrats recent willingness to confirm a nominee with similar drawbacks?

Yes, except for one big chink in her armor - and I stress BIG chink, especially in light of the President's weakened position and swirling storms over cronyism. It is true, Democrats would have a tough time making the we-don't-know-enough-about-her argument after their pathetic behavior in the Roberts' nomination. But, Miers has one defining characteristic that is both very troubling, and very politically potent: her major defining trait is her position as a Bush crony/ultra-loyalist.

And yet...

We're supposed to believe that, suddenly, Karl Rove had a stroke, Bush grew a conscience and that the Miers nomination is a liberal-directed stumble. ("Whoops! Did I accidentally nominate a liberal? Oh fuck!")

We're supposed to attribute this pro-gay-adoption memo to her personal views, even though there are 12 signatures on it. And we're supposed to extrapolate this alleged view to represent pro-civil rights views in general.

We're supposed to melt upon hearing of her article advocating legal representation for the poor.

I can't see straight, for all the spinning in the so-called "liberal" blogosphere. Maybe they're right. Maybe she's a raving liberal. Some folks say that Dems and progressives should support her, simply because the wingnuts are up in arms. But I wonder just how much of that right-wing protest is simply a reaction to the nomination of a 60-year-old, unmarried, childless, career woman. Obviously her non-wife, non-breeder status casts a shadow on her conservative credentials. Ahem....

Maybe I was right the first time, and the conservatives will block her, paving the way for someone like Janice Rogers Brown. And leaving the GOP all fired up and fundraising-ready for the coming election season ... while leaving the Dems holding their certitudes in their hands, wondering where all the women went.

It hasn't taken long for the big blog boys on the right and left to sound off on Harriet Miers. Not surprisingly, Markos and John Aravosis are already salivating. Apparently a Bush insider is just dandy for them. They seem to think this is a huge GOP blunder. Markos goes so far as to claim that Miers is a moderate -- though how he would figure that, given that she has virtually no paper trail, who knows?

Here's another take:

Karl Rove is no fool, and perhaps John and Markos and gloating Dems are falling for a feint. What happens if there's enough suspicion and resistance on both sides of the aisle so that she cannot win an up or down vote?

After all, while Miers has some questionable episodes in her partisan past, it's also clear that she's not quite the right's cup of tea.

Remember, we're entering an election season, and the radicals need political cover, and Miers is not it. They push back, and Bush then is "forced" to name a radical wingnut like Owens or Brown or some crazy outsider like Dobson himself (don't laugh ... well, okay, laugh), and the GOP goes into the election reinvigorated with hot excitement in its base, and renewed energy to push back the fiscal conservatives who would spoil the party and end the pig-outs at the taxpayer trough.

In other words, Miers is the attenuated virus to stimulate the white corpuscles in the right wing body, thus strengthening the body against infection. Miers could be rejected and a verifiable wingnut will be called in to unite the right.

Meanwhile, such developments would further alienate the Democratic Party-Ã¼ber-alles folks from progressive voters, who already are rather mistrustful of aspiring flacks, perhaps for good reason. In other words, it could be that Miers was nominated to be rejected by a bipartisan bloc, leading to reactions that will strengthen the Republicans while pitting the Democrat appeasers against their progressive voter base.

Look at how already, mere hours out of the starting blocks, the Dems are already once again at odds with their progressive base. Reid has come out endorsing Miers, which has won him few friends. And no doubt if Miers is rejected, Kos and company will jump back onto the game of blaming us progressives for our "pet issues," which does nothing but bring Karl Rove joy.

And the Dems in '06 will be in total disarray.

Then again, this gambit may not exist at all. Or she may be confirmed anyway. But that's hardly cause for gloating on the left. Sterling Newberry offers caution:

All it takes to get the left to roll over is a well coordinated right wing campaign that Mier is unacceptable to the right. The right did the same thing with Roberts - screamed that he wasn't acceptable. This is part of the strategy people - have the right scream so that the muddled middle has to think that she is one of them.

When "US v Rove" comes before the court, you'll see what this really means - Bush is lawyering up the court, appointing two long time conservative hacks to the bench to block anything that might lead back to him.

There's been a lot of calling for real accountability when it comes to Bush and his administration's neglect of essential government programs related to our national security and civil infrastructure, leading to the failures so bloody apparent in the aftermath of Katrina. And I agree, Bush should be held accountable.

The Republicans are now trying to mount a big coverup campaign, by maintaining control over any investigation of what really happened. Why are they doing this? What do they have to hide? What are they afraid of?

The truth?

But I think it's important for progressives to understand that this disaster is not just about Bush, and it's not just about the Republicans who collaborated with Bush to dismantle our government -- all the while increasing spending and feeding at the taxpayer trough.

The more important thing that happened in the past few weeks is the exposure of the utter bankruptcy of conservative ideology, which since Ronald Reagan (at least) has tried to claim that government is the enemy, that government must be destroyed.

What is obvious to most Americans is that we could have used effective government to not only respond to the Katrina disaster better, but also prevented much of the death and destruction. This is a case where the private sector just does not fit the bill. This is a case where government planning is not only helpful, it's essential.

Bush knows it. His speech was all about government programs. He didn't talk about how he freed the government contractors like Halliburton to take advantage of the desperation of the people suffering there by paying minimum wage for skilled construction jobs. He didn't talk about policies to allow more pollution to contaminate the air and water. No, he was doing his best to sound like a Democrat.

Funny, that. And very revealing. Because this also reveals that Karl Rove knows that Republicans have to sound like progressives now.

Think about that. The entire American political landscape has changed. Metaphorically, we now see we need trees and all the Republicans have axes in their hands. They are not equipped to respond. We the People demand results, and the only way they can deliver is by embracing progressive values.

There's a long battle ahead. The GOP controls the entire government, from White House to Congress to the court system. But I think the people -- We the People of the United States of America -- have had a wake-up call, thanks to Katrina. What happens now will take place in the context of a revived political culture -- a political culture that sees government not as an obstacle but as our tool, not as the enemy but as our servant, not as a problem but as a problem solver.

And those who screech the conservative ideology are finding themselves with zero political capital. You don't want an Amish auto mechanic. You don't want a vegan BBQ chef. And you don't want a conservative running government.

It just doesn't work.

Will it last? I don't know. But I do know that whether we hold Bush accountable or not, he's not going to be standing for election any time soon. We need to focus on the future, and create it proactively, instead of simply reacting to what the Republicans do.